Huff
Huff
About
- Username
- Huff
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,181
- Last Active
Comments
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1378466#Comment_1378466
If I came to you and said, "Hey buddy, I'll give you this game for free, I just want you to do 200 hours worth of yard work for me", then are you really getting it for free, or are you paying me with your time at that point?
200 hours of which, you could be doing anything else, or skip having to do by paying $60 for said game and getting it yourself.
Time is a commodity, especially for live service games which is what DBD is. The longer a player plays a game like this, the more invested they feel. This is a monetization trap. The more invested a player feels they are with a game, the less likely they will be willing to leave said game, even if the game turns to crap, which DBD currently is with how much of a broken, buggy mess it is right now. People don't want the time (or money) they invested into the game, to go to waste.
Many games now-a-days do not monetize off of player entertainment, but from player engagement.
"Pay" implies that you are using currency. Time is not currency. If you want to be philosophical with the whole "time is money" thing, then that's fine, but nobody is forcing anybody to give up currency to buy Kate, and when most people are saying "free," they're talking about the item not needing to be purchased with real life currency. As I said, you can be all philosophical with it or whatever and try to argue that time is a commodity, but nobody cares about that in this conversation. I know what you're trying to say: "it's not free because you have to do work to get it," but how far do you want to go with that? You could stretch that so far, you could just say "well nothing is free because everything costs something." It's like, sure yeah okay maybe you're right, but what does that really add to the conversation? It doesn't really, in the context that most people are using.
This is why I asked, "Would you argue that it's not free to post on this forum then, as it requires you to spend time?" (Which you still haven't answered.) The point of that question was to bring to your attention how far you can go with that logic of yours, and that it doesn't exactly apply very well to this sort of conversation. If you don't have to spend money on it, then most people are going to consider it "free." Trying to nitpick their words and tell them that they're wrong because "time is a commodity" isn't going to change a thing because those people obviously aren't talking about that. What they're saying is that it's not behind a paywall, like some auric cell exclusive cosmetics and such are.
BHVR is a company and they make tons of stuff that nobody needs to spend a dime on past the initial price of the game. If somebody buys a game, but they don't have time to play it, then I'd say that buying that game in the first place is probably not a wise investment for said person. They could just straight up charge, and make everything auric cells, because they're a company and they need money. I hate seeing people toss around the word "entitled" like they do so much, but honestly, how "entitled" can you be to expect everything in the game to be given to you without having to spend time or money to get it? Either spend the time and play the game like any other person and accept that you gotta work for some stuff in games sometimes, or instead accept that you lack the time and/or money to get the things you want.
-
Yes, that normally happens when you prestige something.
-
@D3_destr0y3r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1378381#Comment_1378381
"Oh shoot, the killer is coming back to tunnel me! Better hop on a generator/totem/in a locker!"
Tunneling isn't always instant. The killer can leave the hook to find another survivor instead of camping and then the survivor on the hook can get unhooked and...
- Get healed by a teammate, and then heal that teammate, disabling DS.
- If you have solidarity you want to heal a teammate before you get healed(Although nobody uses solidarity so that situation will almost never occur)
- They might not want to get slugged out of DS and thus after getting off hook and seeing the killer marching towards them might Jump in a locker, to force DS to be used or for the killer to leave.
- You may want to get in a locker if you have Inner Strength
- You may have resilience and instantly get on a gen after getting off the hook, that doesn't mean the killer won't go for you over all others the minute they sees you.
- You can do the same thing as the last one if you have second wind
- You can also instantly get on a gen anyway, whether it's a wise decision or not
- If There is a NOED totem then you want to cleanse that before you bother healing
- If there is a Devour Hope totem with 3 or more tokens then you want to cleanse that before you heal
I hope when you say a few examples those will suffice.
"If the killer leaves the hook, then you aren't being tunneled."
Actually if the killer leaves the hook it means you aren't being camped, but I get that you mean if they leave they are searching for somebody else.
If they look for somebody else they might not be trying to tunnel, but if they still continuously down you & only you then it is still tunneling. Especially if when you get unhooked they instantly go for you instead of the person who unhooked you.
You can search and fail but passing up another survivor for the one who got off the hook is tunneling!
To clarify I know that the killer who leaves the hook and comes back will also sometimes aim for the unhooker.
But leaving the hook doesn't mean the killer isn't tunneling.
"That's the whole point of my suggestion: it makes the survivor choose either to have the protection from being "tunneled" or get to progress the game -- not both at the same time"
Survivors shouldn't have to choose between this. You shouldn't have to not do gens, heal your teammates or cleanse totems just so that you don't get bonked on the head with a hammer and thrown on a hook again straight after the last time. You're also putting the survivor's team in a frustrating position where their teammate isn't helping them in anyway and is forced between standing around and doing nothing to be protected from something that shouldn't happen in the first place or actually do stuff and help the team but then have the killer whack you over the head with a spoon and put you on the hook instantly.
I simply disagree.
-
@danielmaster87 said:
As many of you may have noticed, hitting survivors on the hook is no longer a thing. Instead of the regular blood splat, now dust just comes off like you hit a wall. So killer bm has literally been patched out. My point is this: Why is our bm patched out but tbagging and flashlight clicking is left in. I don't care how petty of an issue you think this is. It shows a direct, blatant survivor preference from the devs. I want my bm back or take away the survivors' ; All or nothing.
Dude, that's literally not even a nerf. It's a "nerf" if you consider any sort of BM to be an advantage to gameplay, which it really isn't. If anything it's a buff, because you won't go into the successful hit cooldown as if you hit the survivor. Now you can swing at a survivor going for a save and not have to worry about being automatically forced to hit the person on hook.
-
@Bovinity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1380375#Comment_1380375
So if someone drops their ice cream cone and starts whining about it for an hour and I say, "Stop whining." am I now also whining?
That's a horrible analogy. I couldn't imagine what you mean by that.
If the implication is that the people that are voicing their dissatisfaction with the event are the "someone drops their ice cream cone" person, and this post would be the "Stop whining" then I just say that's simply framing it in a super biased way. Plenty of people I've read making comments are perfectly respectful of it. To try to frame it the way you did is just purely disingenuous so, unless you want to actually argue things without your bias, I don't really see a point to responding.
Like I said, people are allowed to voice their opinions. If you complain that they're voicing their opinions (in a place where people go to discuss things, THE FORUMS) and they're "whining" to you, then by your definition, you voicing your opinion is also whining.
If you want to just be biased though and just dismiss all the critics as "whining" then you clearly aren't open for a discussion, so feel free to respond appropriately if you're going to at all.
-
@Bovinity said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1380356#Comment_1380356
I never understood this argument.
If someone is whining and I say, "Stop whining", coming back with "You're whining about whining!" seems really weird and nonsensical. 😂
It's to point out the irony of making a post being unhappy about something and then doing that same exact thing. It's not weird and nonsensical at all, unless we're talking about somebody who completely lacks the ability to detect irony. Then maybe to that kind of person, it might be weird and nonsensical.
It's not an "argument." It's me saying that people have a right to voice their opinions, and pointing out the irony of complaining about complaining. Makes perfect sense to me.
-
Ah, the classic "I'm going to complain about other people complaining."
I can't really say how I personally feel about the event, because I have yet to play it, but I mean... People can voice their opinions if they want. Isn't that kind of the point of a forum?
-
God, some people don't understand the original post. The OP is talking about how using the cosmetics makes it hard to stealth, that's it.
WTH are people talking about "pay to win" (even though the mentioned examples make no sense) and "They're not supposed to give you an advantage," for??? Like, that wasn't even the point of the post... lmao
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again: maybe I just don't get it because I'm not LGBTQ+ or whatever, but I always felt like the best way to be inclusive and make people feel welcome is to literally just treat them like anybody else. I would imagine if I just happened to be of a different sexual orientation and people were praising me just for liking to do certain stuff in bed, it would feel just awkward to me. I don't see how it's normalizing the LGBTQ+ community or any other marginalized group or whatever you call them if you try to put them up on a pedestal and act like they're special. At that point it's just making them "not normal" but in a different way.
But hey what do I know? I'm not LGBTQ+.
-
@Mooks said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1378506#Comment_1378506
They could add a char that has some Drag cosmetics but some „normal“ everyday clothing as well.
just look at Jeff and his Black Metal cosmetics; it’s a part of him but not pushed into every cosmetic he owns.
And that's perfectly fine. I mean to me, I love the idea of having different people "represented" because it's simply just natural to include people from all walks of life into an art in any case I can think of. That being said, I wouldn't exactly word it as "I want a drag queen." If they add a drag queen and it's a well-written character that's awesome. I want every kind of character to be like that. I just wouldn't exactly word it like the original post's title.
I just think a character needs to be taken seriously and thought of when trying to include them into a story, not just "well, let's just throw in X kind of character because we need more of that." Any kind of character they want to add (granted it's actually healthy for the game, like if it's a killer) is fine with me so long as they treat the character with that sort of respect.
-
I just want new interesting characters whose whole design isn't solely comprised of one superficial trait they have. That's the best kind of character to me.
-
I honestly like the idea, but I'm not optimistic whatsoever about them bringing certain items back. To me it's weird that they would give out things like Ace's purple hat for example, but leave certain things limited like the Hound mask for Huntress. I kind of understand the Bloodletting shirt because I guess that had monetary value (even though they could just host the same event and allow for the thing to be obtained again, through money) but I just think limited cosmetics are weird if some of them are being given out and some aren't.
Same thing with legacy. I saw the game advertised a long time ago but being a kid I had no job and no money so I wasn't getting my hands on it. It makes me sad that I don't have the option to play with legacy just because I wasn't really able to hop on the bandwagon early enough, because I actually think legacy looks cool (I'm not even after it for the exclusivity, I just like the effect.) Even if they had a different color like a silvery one or a blue one or green like you had said even, it would be cool. I'm not going to hold my breath on any of that though. I've just accepted by this point that there's always going to be things in games that I'm not going to be able to have, and not just in DbD. This applies to many games.
I do like your idea though. I understand people who are for the exclusivity. That's a completely valid stance to have. I personally just think, at least with DbD, the cosmetics being available to everyone wouldn't be that bad, and your suggestion would also give life to the devotion system which many players have been complaining about for a long time. It's like killing two birds with one stone, but I wouldn't count on it happening. :/
-
@slim0b said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/8FUZFHWNDK3Q/20200623163225-1.jpg
I've been playing this game for almost a week now and recently when I started killer, I get in matches with the color levels, and for some reason they're always the ones insulting in the chat after game. Is this a pattern everywhere or I'm just getting bad matches (sorry if english isn't that good)
You'll run into players that are friendly enough, but you have to think that with 4 different players you're going against there's a chance for each one of them to be toxic. So more than likely, you'll get at least one per game, but then there's also the fact that people like to group with each other which tends to lead to them being more toxic (because they feel like they can do more as a team, or because they want to look cool in front of their friends.)
I wouldn't get discouraged into thinking it's just going to be every game and just ruin the game entirely to you. If you ask me, the end game chat is one of the most useless parts of this game anyway. The only time I ever stick around is to either check somebody's build or look at emblems or something.
-
I could be wrong, but I read somewhere while back about different killer weapons, and I remembered reading that they actually do have different hitboxes, or at least some. I can't remember a lot because this was a while ago, but I think I remembered reading that, for example, Nurse has a shorter lunge than others, but she has a longer swing/hit range (or it couldve been reversed with a longer lunge but shorter weapon range).
I don't it should be a super big thing though for killers to have a bunch of different attack sizes like that. I understand a few here and there (like how some people say Freddy's lunge looks kind of off, like it's too long for his arm) but I like the idea of learning a general killer attack range and only having to play around some special exceptions, because it would allow people to get used to doing certain maneuvers and make it feel more special when they do run into that "different" kind of lunge/attack.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1377959#Comment_1377959
Can you buy her with money?
Yes?
Then she's a paid character.
You do not get her for free. She either costs time, or she costs auric cells (which costs money), or you buy her (with the clown) for actual money. All three of those things is a commodity. Yes. Even time.
Would you argue that it's not free to post on this forum then, as it requires you to spend time?
I don't understand people who complain about not being able to complete on challenge over something like this.
If you want the lore, you can always read it online, or if you don't want to do that the lore will always be available to you even after the rift closes.
If you want the lore personally, you can buy the character or save your money and spend your time instead to get shards for the character.
I just don't see the huge deal... People act like these challenges are mandatory for anything but they're not. Anybody can look up the lore any time they want, rift fragments can be earned through pure gameplay and therefore the challenges aren't mandatory to complete the rift, the challenges stay up forever so even if you complete them late they will still give bloodpoint and lore rewards. They also haven't made any rifts that involve characters that are exclusive to buy with money.
It's just like... If you don't have money, and you don't have time, is it really a big priority for you to be playing games? Even if you want to play games, you likely aren't going to always be able to get every single thing in every game. That's especially true for people who don't have a lot of time or don't have a lot of money. People who don't have money are going to miss out on things like founders packs when games release, and people who don't have time are going to miss out on events and limited time items and deals in games. Things like this will always be the reality, and it's surprising to me that with all this being so, that people will complain over something like a single Kate challenge or something.
Also, OP, the game isn't telling you "Yeah you want to finish this thing? Pay money." The only way it would be saying that is if Kate was a licensed character like Bubba, which she isn't.
-
TBH I thought you meant worst as in they're like dealing with Satan. I didn't think you actually meant they're bad skill-wise.
I was about to say, I'm starting to have it out for Fengs, not Clauds. Fengs are usually the ones that think they're hot ######### from my experiences (maybe they like to pick the cute character and show off because they have a princess complex IRL? I have no idea why.)
As for the actual "worst" survivors I see (when it comes to skill) it's usually Meggheads. I have no idea what it is about them -- it almost feels like they aren't human. Like an AI trying to figure out how to blend in with other humans on a game of DbD. I like to watch them sometimes like I'm watching a nature documentary in real time.
-
To OP: I find it hard to believe that you don't know, unless you've ignored every other FNaF thread that's been made on here.
@Rydog said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1378369#Comment_1378369
Where are you drawing this conclusion from about FNAF's fan base?
Also, more broadly to the original question: People don't consider it "real" horror for whatever reason. Heck, people came out to criticize Silent Hill too, just because it wasn't drawn from a movie. I think this is unfair and gatekeep-y. Horror can take many forms. And, as far as the tone, I'll remind you all that we also have a man who dresses up in an elephant suit, a girl with a bunny costume, and those goofy Legion cosmetics introduced last patch. The tone of the game can wind up being pretty silly already.
Hey, what about Ash? Or what if Tucker and Dale were added as survivors? Or what if there were a Toxic Avenger chapter one day, or a Hatchet chapter, or a Child's Play chapter or something? Those are all pretty ridiculous, but they're still horror.
I don't think it's a good point to bring up the whole "elephant suit, girl with a bunny costume, and those goofy Legion cosmetics," simply because for the Legion ones, I have to give them a pass because they were part of a deal, and I can't really speak as to what kind of details were included in that deal. As for the Feng one (I'm assuming that's what you mean by bunny costume) the survivors aren't intended to be scary. I wouldn't criticize the game for having Dwight in because nerds or managers aren't scary. And then the Clown one, I'll admit is probably the most "non scary thing" there, but I still don't think it's as ridiculous as Chuck E. Cheese animatronics. Clown is like this grungy kidnapper guy who goes around with a traveling circus posing as a member so he can murder people. To me it's just fitting for him to have some sort of mascot costume, and plus it isn't even really supposed to look that "cute." I mean, unless you find grimy dirty animal costumes with a flap cut out of the ass check area to be cute. Then maybe it's cute to you. My point is, those things don't exactly mean that DbD isn't supposed to mainly be horror.
I just think some people simply don't like the idea of FNaF because it's just not something they see being in the game. I don't think criticism over Silent Hill is nearly as valid because horror icons can come from a lot of different sources. Hell, even Hag, who's a wendigo, doesn't come from any film or game that I know. From what I could tell, it's more from folklore. That doesn't mean a wendigo can't be part of a horror game, same as Pyramid Head.
I just went into this conversation in another FNaF thread where a guy advocating for it was saying essentially that "there's always going to be people that don't like it" and "there's only so many horror icons to choose from," and stuff like that. I don't exactly think he's wrong. Yea, there could be room eventually for that kind of character. Thing is, there's plenty of people who think that other characters are a lot more deserving of the spot in the game than any character from FNaF. Just being connected to the franchise itself is a valid enough reason in my opinion for somebody to dislike a character. As mentioned earlier, there could be room eventually for a character, but there could eventually be room for Spongebob too. Does that mean that I think Spongebob is a good fit? No.
I don't think it's "gatekeep-y" for people to disagree with a certain franchise being included, because I think it needs to be judged on an individual basis. For example, the other thread I mentioned with that one FNaF advocate, that guy was saying that people were mentioning that Demogorgon shouldn't be in the game because he's a monster and not a human or whatever. I personally think that's an idiotic reason to try to exclude something from this game, because there's plenty of non-human characters that could be included under the "horror" genre. As for people having a problem with the kind of age demographic a franchise appeals to, or having a problem with the story being garbage, those are arguments that I can actually give credit to.
Yea sure, some people are closed-minded and just won't be willing to accept a character ever, but it's kind of ridiculous how many times FNaF fans on here will bring up the idea, get shot down, and then more will make posts later on asking why there's hate for it. I just don't see why people don't understand the hate for it by now. I'm not even saying it's an objectively bad franchise, but... People act like the criticisms for it either don't exist or aren't valid.
At the end of the day, I ultimately think it's up to the company anyway, and you know what companies are interested in: money. If a large majority of their playerbase is against an idea (such as FNaF) then I think it's pretty obvious what kind of position it puts them in. Just in case it isn't: they're going to either make a decision to include such thing and piss off a lot of their fans, or they can decide not to appeal to the minority and keep their overall playerbase happy.
-
@Primalux135 said:
Greetings I would like to know that if The Pig boxes works like:
a) One of the boxes have the key
b) Its a percentaje that one box have the key and increase with the more boxes u search
I'm pretty sure the way it works is each helmet has a respective box that unlocks it (pulled at random.) I say that because any time I'm in a match against Pig where multiple survivors are trying to take their helmets off, I will never get my helmet off at the same box as one of my team mates. Using this knowledge I've usually been able to take off my helmet safely (so long as I know where my team mates have been) since I know by process of elimination that they had gotten their own helmet off at a certain box so mine has to be another one.
I don't think the % increases per box either.
-
@Division912 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1374130#Comment_1374130
I mean I could somewhat see slender but with the existence of legion in the game making Jeff unique would be somewhat hard
Please don't take those ideas seriously. Those were 100% meant as meme suggestions.
-
@D3_destr0y3r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1374584#Comment_1374584
" I just think if it stays that long it needs to disappear the moment you aren't being tunneled, which would be getting into a locker, getting on a generator, getting on a totem, maybe not healing (because you're around an ally who might presumably be trying to protect you), but you get the point. You aren't being tunneled at that point,"
Getting in a locker, cleansing a totem or getting on a gen or healing an ally doesn't mean you aren't being tunneled. The killer can move away from the hook, then you can get rescued get on a gen and then the killer can show up and immediately start going for you again.
If it were to last a longer time like 80-90 seconds(I'm not sure exactly the time increase you meant), and if it were to disable if they went on a gen, totem, enter a locker, etc, then it would discourage them from doing so.
My version also discourages the same thing, however when the maximum mine would last is 60 seconds, it means that even if they don't do anything it will only last 60 seconds, that is still a lot. With your version(Although I'm assuming the time increase you meant) you could be searching for survivors with ages then find the DS user and still get Ds striked after 80 seconds
I simply disagree with "Getting in a locker, cleansing a totem or getting on a gen or healing an ally doesn't mean you aren't being tunneled." PLEASE share with me an example, other than when you have DS, that you would say "Oh shoot, the killer is coming back to tunnel me! Better hop on a generator/totem/in a locker!" I'm pretty sure you aren't going to be able to tell me very many.
If you do any of those things, you likely feel safe enough to do it (because you don't know the killer is around if they even are.) If the killer leaves the hook, then you aren't being tunneled. That just means he came back that just means he came back and you didn't get away fast enough. Even if he was the kind of person that would tunnel, that's why you don't heal somebody up, do a generator, do a totem, or get into a locker. So, because the killer is "tunneling," you want him to have to deal with the perk. That's the whole point of my suggestion: it makes the survivor choose either to have the protection from being "tunneled" or get to progress the game -- not both at the same time, which is what people are doing right now in order to use the perk in a more aggressive playstyle. The whole point of making it deactivate when somebody commits to doing some objective is to discourage them from doing so if they think they're going to get tunneled.
It doesn't matter if the one person isn't doing anything with their DS, even if it lasts up to 60 seconds. What I'm saying is that with your suggestion, they still have their 60 seconds of immunity and don't have to worry about losing the effect if they want to get on an objective. I simply just disagree with that, because that's exactly what makes the perk so overwhelming in the first place. People just use it to do things right in front of the killer's face, which isn't what the case should be. I don't even think it needs any time extension. You're recommending it be base kit when it's already arguably the best survivor perk that exists in the game. The least you could do is compromise on that part. Survivors don't need 30+ seconds of immunity (and I say 30+ knowing that it's always going to much quite a bit more than that) base kit. Also, I never said to make it 80-90 seconds. I don't know where you got that. And you already go searching for other survivors and get DS'd after 55 seconds with the current version. That's why it needs to cancel out if people progress the game.
I don't know how else to word it to you other than that: Survivors don't need immunity from being picked up base kit. If it's going to remain as strong as it is, it definitely needs to remain a perk. I would only ever be okay with it if, like I said, it cancelled when you progress the game. That's the only way you're going to "not just punish killers for getting around to another survivor before the 60 seconds was up." As I said, make the timer progress 2x faster, it still won't matter. Even 30+ seconds of a stupid effect like that isn't reasonable with how fast games go. Either make it cancel out like I said if you're going to give survivors a strong base kit perk, or give killers something of about equal power. I wouldn't be opposed to survivors having DS base if I got to have Devour Hope, or Make Your Choice, or even an ivory mori. Just please for the love of god don't give survivors that stupid mini god mode base kit. That's one of the worst ideas I've heard.
@D3_destr0y3r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1375297#Comment_1375297
Pyramid head literally has a Mori in his base-kit, and this is not the same as old ruin.
Old ruin or even just ruin now has an unpreventable impact unless you cleansed the totem instantly the minute you entered a match.
Ds and the changes I made(While not flawless) specifically target tunneling as a method, meaning a killer who doesn't tunnel doesn't have it effect them. (Although I would add a trait to Object where it disables DS but then buff object a small bit because of that.)
Also the devs have more perk concepts then they know what to do with, and if they didn't the community does. They can literally just choose one of the perks that would fit Laurie well
Also:
- PH's execution doesn't work the same as a mori. It can't completely bypass both the 2nd and 3rd hook states, only the 3rd and final one.
- You said Ruin is unpreventable but name a way to prevent it in literally the same exact sentence.
- It still would affect killers who don't tunnel because killers would still have to deal with stupid DS protection, allowing for survivors to just do things right in front of their face still. Talk about "unpreventable impact."
-
@NightmareReborn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1374560#Comment_1374560
As I said, every idea is going to have some disagreers. Not to try to brag or use this to justify my opinion, but this post has over 20 upvotes as of me writing this comment. That, at a minimum, shows that people are at least agreeing to the argument being made. FNaF is being accepted now more than ever before. There have been multiple FNaF related forum threads here, and earlier this week, there were 3 concepts for a FNaF chapter all on the front page of the fan creations subforum. Look at this concept on reddit; it wasn't even posted a week ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/hahpxk/dbdfnaf_a_rough_concept_for_a_new_license_killers/
The other reddit threads in my main post weren't made absurdly long ago either.
What you mentioned about "fitting" is the EXACT reason why I hate the argument. There is no way to prove something fits the game. The only thing that I can definitively argue about it is that "FNaF is a horror game, and that there is in fact a killer that I personally don't think would be an oddball among the others", but its ultimately is up to perception.
While, as I said, there are no definitive rules describing what objectively can and cant be a character, people have a general idea of what they want Dead by Daylight to look like, and its up to them to determine that. That perspective varies wildly between people, and not only that, it changes rapidly. Sure, most people want Dead by Daylight to be scary, but what does scary look like?
I showed how Springtrap has many different attributes and an interesting story that makes him an actual killer. What I can't do is definitively, 100%, argue that "Due to these attributes I mentioned, he would objectively suit the game". If you don't agree with me that Springtrap "fits" DbD, then you and I probably just have different visions of what the game should look like, which is totally fine. My argument is based of the perspective that Dead by Daylight is a horror game, so I mentioned things that make him a killer, and that make him scary, but then again, what is scary to me may not be to you. There's no definition to it. If you notice in the first part of my post (where I argue about him fitting), anything that isn't a definitive fact there is my opinion, because I can't speak on behalf of the Dead by Daylight community. The best I can do is explain to you my perspective.
About the Demogorgon, I saw a lot of support for him, but I also saw a lot of people complaining how non human killers shouldn't be in the game, and that demogorgon is just too odd of a character. I personally didn't really care for the Demogorgon all too much, but I wasn't upset either. I thought he was a cool addition, but I didn't have any strong emotion towards him because I dont watch Stranger Things. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and this post isn't really aimed at people who simply don't like/want FNaF. If you don't like it, you don't like it. This is more aimed at the people who shortchange FNaF and try to use that to justify why FNaF isn't a good idea.
About FNaF and Creepypastas attracting the wrong crowds, it is true that they're both aimed at the same target audience (Teen Horror), but I don't feel like its necessarily fair to just assume that since FNaF targets a slightly younger crowd, that its horror factor is any less genuine than Dead by Daylight's. There might not be as strong of suggestive themes in FNaF, but I don't consider that to be cheesy or low effort.
I don't really think FNaF is being "milked" either. Scott Cawthon (the creator of Five Nights at Freddy's) has actively stopped working on FNaF games in the past because he simply didn't want to. Sure, the series has a lot of merchandise that can make a lot of money, but then how is it any different from DbD's skins or the Rift pass? He didn't have to give refunds to people who didn't like one of his games, but he did anyway, and then proceeded to make it free. Additionally, all of his more recent FNaF games have been free. He could easily profit from it, but it's clear that's not why he makes games. If he wanted money, he would have kept making FNaF games by himself, instead of collaborating with Triple A studios to make a better game.
As for FNaF's story, you're definitely right that it isn't exactly clear, but I think that's a design choice. FNaF doesn't tell a story; it gives clues so you can figure one out. It's only been recently that Scott decided to go back and try to clear it up.
Going by your definition of a meme, then yeah I totally agree that creepypastas became a meme. They were never taken too seriously, but that didn't stop my 10-year old self from thinking they were literary masterpieces at the time.
To answer your questions about FNaF, it has evolved in some ways, while not really changing in others. While there have been mild shifts in gameplay formula during FNaF's indie stages, the real evolution came with the leap to VR. At it's core, FNaF is still mostly a sit and survive game, but the change to a 3D environment gave it far more depth. The VR game features the first 4 games in full VR and 3D, which makes the horror of those games less focused on jumpscares and more focused on the realism of actually being there, in the environment. Its not something that's easy to put into words, but I hope you got what I meant. The game also features more unique modes, such as Vent Repair, Night Terrors, and the Halloween modes, which all feature slight to moderate deviations from the standard gameplay. It also has a pretty dark story. The new AR game is something completely different than FNaF's traditional formula, but I don't know too much about it since I haven't seen much of it myself. Ultimately, FNaF has always mainly drawn its horror from its lore and story, which is a whole other topic on its own. I don't really consider myself an active FNaF community member, so I don't know every last detail of the lore.
Also (just to make something clear) when I said other killers are more deserving of a spot, I was referring to Slenderman and Jeff the Killer. I think a FNaF killer would be cool. After all, how many other options are there for possible video game licenses? There's amnesia, and maybe the devs could revisit left for dead, but other than that I don't see much else. I will say that movie characters have a much better roster of characters to chose from than video games.
FNaF has remained, and always will be, my pick for a licensed character, but I'm not gonna throw hands over a FNaF chapter not being added. There's a gargantuan amount of people that want the chapter, but there's also a lot who don't. Although, I don't really believe that people would drop the entire game over 1 character they didn't like; I find that a little hard to believe. Nevertheless, its ultimately the developer's choice.
But, I can't stress this enough: It is perfectly okay to be entitled to your opinion. I sure am. This isn't supposed to be an attack on you personally in anyway.
P.S: If you respond to this, that's cool, and I'll probably read it, but I may not respond since writing these 10 trillion paragraph essays aren't fun.
No need to respond with a big comment honestly, I agree with most of what you said. As mentioned, I can't really say much, since I am sort of ignorant to the current events of FNaF, so in all that stuff I'll have to trust you. I appreciate you being civil about it though, a lot of people will get defensive when something they like is criticized like this.
-
@w_sohl said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1374624#Comment_1374624
A Mori and DS are two different things. A Mori ends that players game, DS doesn't end the killers game, it just extends a chase.
It's mostly supposed to be sarcastic. But I really am gonna save moris up just as "insurance." I'm not the kinda person to just mori off first hook but you can definitely tell when some people are trying to play like a jerk, and that's who they'll be for. :^)
-
Hahaha when he even says there's many reasons and you still water it down to "New map makes Scott Jund quit playing killer."
That's rich.
-
This is why I'm saving loads of moris on any killer I get to P3. It'll be my "DS insurance" so I don't have to deal with stuff like this. Anyone who gives me crap for using probably the most powerful killer tool will just get told the same thing that people who hate DS are told "I need it to counter this certain type of playstyle, just play better it's so easily counterable."
-
@Alice_pbg said:
I guess I've just been blessed enough to stop hearing about it after the initial craze with all the Youtubers playing it. Fair enough if you just disagree that the creepypasta things have a following, but my main point is that the things are practically a meme at this point. Just like Slenderman and Jeff were brought up so much back then, people just got sick of hearing it and it kinda became a joke. Same thing happened with FNaF -- as you can see, I'm not the only one who feels this way, judging by many criticisms the OP seems to be drawing from (with all the bold texted points.)
There's games coming out making a f* ton of sales day 1, there's books, a movie and apparently a triple A game in the making that I didn't know was a thing.
Fnaf is very alive. Just check the numbers a fnaf video does on game theory and you'll see.
Everything is a meme, including dbd. 🤷♂️
I mean, people have issues with things you wouldn't guess are an issue. It comes with things being subjective. Like, "would X character be cool?".
Look at smash for instance (cause let's be honest, it's the closest thing we can compare it to) Byleth got into the game, was expected since she/he is the new FE character. People were SO pissed, you would think they added sonichu or peter griffin.
Someone, is always gonna disagree. It's how it goes
I agree with what you're saying for the most part. I can't really speak on behalf of FNaF about its numbers with my lack of interest of it, but people can like what they like.
The whole point of my first comment in here was, I felt like the OP was just kind of almost trying to "debunk" (I guess?) a lot of complaints that people have about the game, which is why I started it with "Can't people just not like FNaF?" To me the whole "I'm going to tell you why those complaints shouldn't be worried about" thing just kind of rubs me the wrong way. The post doesn't change a lot in terms of how I feel about it, and I don't imagine it changes much for a lot of people. Like, I'm sure people appreciate a well thought out character, but if people don't like FNaF, and they have reasons they don't like it (like how it wouldn't "fit") then you're not going to win if you try to prove them wrong, and you probably aren't going to get a lot of traction when simply put, it's not a small group of people who don't like the idea.
-
@D3_destr0y3r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1373747#Comment_1373747
I also mentioned body blocking.
and when not being chased by the killer it shouldn't be 60 seconds long because it goes down faster when you do things
Like I said: "If the whole thing is 60 seconds and only will deactivate from a protection hit or another survivor being hooked," so yeah. I realized you said body blocking. I still don't think that makes a difference.
And even decaying at 2x speed (on a generator, as you put it) it still would be too long. It would realistically be more than 30s long still because you wouldn't be progressing it 2x until you actually get on the generator, so you're looking at still 30+ seconds of the same stupid annoying effect. I don't care if it's 60s long, because like I said it should stay a longer duration like that if we're making it exclusive to getting tunneled (like you seem to be suggesting.) I just think if it stays that long it needs to disappear the moment you aren't being tunneled, which would be getting into a locker, getting on a generator, getting on a totem, maybe not healing (because you're around an ally who might presumably be trying to protect you), but you get the point. You aren't being tunneled at that point, so it needs to shut off. Even if it were to work how you're saying where it had a 60 second timer you suggested ideas for it to be specifically against tunneling. If you're getting on a generator or doing a totem, you aren't being tunneled. You also could just literally not do any of the things you listed would speed up the process, and instead still try to be the annoying douche survivor that's sitting there trying to click their flashlights and be irritating to the killer. That way your timer still stays at 60 seconds, you still have your mini god mode, and it can't be deactivated unless you just screw up your flashlight blinds (because you wouldn't be taking a protection hit and the killer wouldn't be allowed to hook another survivor.) I just don't think it should be allowed to be used while you're not being tunneled, and the killer just happens to run back into you (which you yourself said was the point of these suggestions.) That all could easily happen in 30 seconds, and that's if the survivor was immediately back on a generator the moment they got off the hook. Is that still not stupid for the killer to deal with?
So like I said before, only way that's ever going to work is if the whole effect deactivates the moment the survivor progresses the game in any way or hops into a locker so they can't force a stupid locker DS grab. Iron Will arguably isn't as strong as DS, but with the recent audio from the Silent Hill patch being so buggy, it's like every survivor had Iron Will as base kit. That one effect alone is already incredibly strong. If they added DS as base kit the way you're saying, just like they unintentionally gave every survivor Iron Will, then the game just wouldn't be playable at that point unless you're facing ultra potatoes.
-
@Alice_pbg said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1374130#Comment_1374130
I was around for it. I read way too many creepy pasta. One of my favorites was the nes godzilla one.
Slenderman was really famous a while ago, but now it has died down. Sirenhead is kinda taking it's spot honestly.
It's specially true with jeff. Who the hell even knows about jeff the killer besides old internet people like us?
But fnaf has a really big following to this day and it doesn't seen to wanna stop any time soon.
I guess I've just been blessed enough to stop hearing about it after the initial craze with all the Youtubers playing it. Fair enough if you just disagree that the creepypasta things have a following, but my main point is that the things are practically a meme at this point. Just like Slenderman and Jeff were brought up so much back then, people just got sick of hearing it and it kinda became a joke. Same thing happened with FNaF -- as you can see, I'm not the only one who feels this way, judging by many criticisms the OP seems to be drawing from (with all the bold texted points.)
@NightmareReborn said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1373827#Comment_1373827
People can like whatever they want to like. If you like the concept of a FNaF chapter in DbD, that's great. If not, that's cool too. This post isn't here to say "your opinion is wrong". It's here to fight illegitimate criticism that FNaF gets from the DbD community, and why these concerns that a lot of people have shouldn't be concerns. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect that. However, I've seen more support for a FNaF chapter in recent times than ever before, especially in this thread. Of course, every potential idea will be met with "No"s, and that isn't exclusive to FNaF by any means.
I've always hated the argument of "Does (insert character here) 'fit' in Dead by Daylight?". What defines "fitting" in? Is there a definition to what can and cant be in the game? As far as I'm aware, there are literally no "rules" as for who can be added. Everyone thought that Demogorgon wouldn't fit DbD, and now that argument ceases to exist. Why? Its because his addition shaped public perception about what a killer can be. The rules for what can be a killer were never, and will never be, defined. It constantly changes with each new killer we get, and the addition of a FNaF character would be no exception to this rule.
The Jeff the Killer argument is a little odd. I can't help but feel like apples and oranges are being compared. FNaF is a series that has lived a long legacy, has had multiple indie releases, a VR game, an AR game, and soon, will have a Triple A game, and a movie. Jeff the Killer, like FNaF, was created by an individual, and popular on the internet for some time, but that's about all they have in common. Jeff the Killer was an internet story, and it never got much bigger, and it shows with what small legacy it left behind. On the other hand, FNaF still lives on to this day. Creepypasta never really became a meme per say, it just more or less died out. FNaF of course has its fair share of memes, but what community doesn't? This community has tons of memes floating around. We're no exception. The only difference is that FNaF's memes have become more mainstream, but that doesn't tarnish the FNaF brand in anyway. If anything, it helped. If FNaF was truly just nothing more than "a jumpscare game" it wouldn't still be getting new content and news to this day.
People are entitled to like whatever they want to like. Do I personally want Jeff the Killer or Slenderman in the game? Not really. Mainly just because I think others are more deserving of that spot. However, if they somehow get in, I'm not going to quit the game, I'm not going to wine and moan. I know that someone out there probably wanted that, and that's enough for me.
This thread is two pages long up to me saying this. If this is exceptionally supportive of FNaF, I think you can understand when I mean that not many people are asking for it. Come the day when a bunch of people flood into this post and start upvoting it and praising how good your idea is, I will admit I'm wrong about that. Until then, I don't really see what you mean by recent "support."
You tell me what defines fitting in. Did you not use those exact word "fit" multiple times in your OP? I imagine if you used it all those times, you know what it means. I can't think of anybody off the top of my head that said that Demogorgon wouldn't fit in DbD. I think maybe the devs at one point said that they weren't planning on doing quadrupedal or monstrous killers or something like that, but the vast majority of people I saw voice their opinions on it were in support of it. I think the argument ceased to exist because it never came about in the first place. As I said before, I wouldn't give a damn if there was just a robotic character that worked similar to how you're talking about, but to me, and I imagine a lot of people, it just gets exhausting hearing of it after a while. I don't want to be exposed to more of this mediocre (if that, in my opinion) franchise because I simply don't like it. You can make a character designed as cool as you want but to some people it's not going to make them take the character seriously if the character itself is something lame they don't like.
As to the "Jeff the Killer argument is a little odd," I already explained why I made the comparison between FNaF and those creepypasta characters: they're both cheesy kiddie horror things, and it shows with the kind of crowds it attracts (see the Slenderman Stabbing story.) They've practically become a meme because of how much it was milked and how you yourself even admit that the story isn't even that well put together (not as in opinion-wise, but how fleshed out it is.) That's where the similarities are the way I see it: cheesy horror stories that are really thrilling mostly to kids that aren't even that well-written. And no, I disagree that creepypasta never really became a meme. It totally did. They're like scary stories, nobody actually gets scared by them, they're just spooky little creepy things to hear about. Anybody who actually takes creepypastas seriously has some catching up to do with reality, because that's really all they are: scary stories. And when I say it becomes a meme, I mean that it's a joke that not a lot of people take seriously. That's just how I see FNaF. Also, yea FNaF is pretty much just a jumpscare game. As I said previously in this post, I stopped being exposed to it after a while (thankfully) but every single game up to that point (yes there were already many games) was watching over something, maybe shutting the doors like in the first game, or putting on the mask like in the 3rd (I think?) game, and then getting jumpscared. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't kept up with FNaF, but is FNaF evolved from that? And if not, how is that not just a jumpscare game? News being put out for the game and new games coming out doesn't have any relevance anyway to how good the game is or if it's "only a jumpscare game," all it shows is that the franchise just continues to be milked.
I'm glad you acknowledge that people are entitled to like whatever they want to like, and you even say yourself "I think others are more deserving of that spot." I'm pretty sure that's exactly why most people don't want it, the same reason. Maybe if we had like 500 killers and the devs really needed ideas, even the people that hate FNaF would be willing to accept it. People just have made it very clear that a large portion of us don't want FNaF. As I said, make a killer design and everything, but the moment you start tying it to a franchise that is controversial, you're going to have to deal with the other side that's saying it's a stupid idea, and a company has to decide if adding a character is worth pissing off their players. I'm sure if they added Slendy into the game, there would already be a chunk of people that drop it just for that, just like some of the peoples' responses to the FNaF threads I've seen saying the same things. I'm glad that you aren't bugged if a killer you don't want isn't in the game, but you have to realize that if certain characters get introduced that people want to not be introduced, it's realistically going to make some people think the game is going downhill. Not sure how big that number would be, but I'm guessing it wouldn't exactly be tiny given the amount of backlash I usually see in FNaF threads. I'm not trying to trash on your desire for the character because you're as free to want FNaF as much as I'm free to want FNaF to not be introduced, I'm just trying to point out the fact that there's a good portion of people that really don't want FNaF for (in my opinion) pretty valid reasons, and just like you said about yourself, some people honestly just "think others are more deserving of that spot."
I mean all this in the most respectful way possible. The effort of the post is great, I just personally wouldn't enjoy the content.
-
Without an actual video or something it's hard to tell exactly how long of a game we're talking, since we're going based off your rough estimates, but yes I can also say that I've had games where it seems like I literally just don't have the necessary power to stop every survivor from completing a gen. Usually because the moment one survivor gets chased, all the other 3 will all start flocking to generators, so then it ends up being a race against the gen times. If the survivors end up playing like that and you get bad map RNG where the survivors have a lot of really safe loops and stuff? Good luck winning that.
-
@Brightened said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1373487#Comment_1373487
Considering it's a matter of opinion, I can say whatever I want lol
He is MORE stressful than the other killers, is my point. To the point of wanting to quit because it's not fun...
Maybe you should re-read the forum...
He never said you can't say something. He said it makes no sense. It's ironic that you then tell him to "re-read the forum..." while you yourself read something wrong.
Also, as to what you do if you must revault? I'd say that means you're at an unsafe area, like an L-T wall. If you don't want to be caught in a situation like that then maybe you need to get to a window you can actually try to play. Shack, for example, has an easily loopable window granted you know how to mind game a little bit. Even if you say "well there's nothing on the map!" then that usually means that the survivors dropped all the pallets too early and had their resources whittled down too much.
-
@Alice_pbg said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1373743#Comment_1373743
I disagree. This "lost of control that results in killing" is not a slashers trope. It's way more common in monster movies, like...almost every werewolf movie, jekil and hyde...
It happens in slashers, but it's rare. Because usually, the person suffering from it is the protagonist, and the killers in slasher movies are rarely the protagonists.
Silent night, deadly night being one such case.
So I very much disagree that fits of killing rage make rin a slasher.
And in her case, coming back from the dead wanting revenge aren't slashers thing either. It happens, like freddy.
But it's a vengeful spirit movie, their own genre. Like several japanese movies. Like ringu and one that I forgot the name... but in it the spirit of a girl comes back to kill everyone that raped/killed her. Besides the main guy, who didn't help her when he could but she likes him. I think it's just called spirits...but I'm not sure.
So, sorry. But you didn't convince me of rin being a slasher.
Pamela is certainly a slasher, but she is insane. The people she is killing have nothing to do with what happened to jason. I wouldn't call it a revenge movie.
In the case of jason, only the 1st kill of the second movie fits the revenge thing. Most of the time, he's just hunting people that are somewhat close to where he is. No real reason behind it.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1373827#Comment_1373827
I do think jeff the killer would fit, and slenderman too.
But, they fail at a very important point that fnaf succeds at.
They aren't famous.
Jeff and slender are incredibly niche. While fnaf is super well known.
Fnaf would bring a ton of players to the game, slender maybe a couple hundred, jeff...maybe 10?
I can't tell if you're trolling or not. Slenderman and Jeff were both like some of the most popular things at one point. You couldn't be on the internet without being exposed to them one way or another. If you think FNaF is "popular" at all then I have no doubts that by your definitions, Slendy and Jeff would be "popular" as well. They aren't "incredibly niche" if you ask me, because like everybody and their mother had heard about them.
Maybe I'm just older than you, and you weren't around for the trend, or maybe you're much older and you just weren't "hip with the kids" around the time it became a trend, but there's no denying that they were extremely popular at one point. I laugh at your "couple hundred" and "maybe 10?" figures, lol. Not even to be mean, it's just quite the understatement.
Either way, if you like kiddie creepypasta- and meme-worthy killers like Jeff and Slenderman, then I guess I understand why you would want FNaF. I just personally think most people who play a game like DbD aren't going to be interested in that kind of character. As I said before, just taking the theme of a character (robotic or whatever) and making an original character out of it is fine, but when it's connected to something a lot of people quite frankly think is kinda cringey, then I just don't personally see it making it in the game.
Maybe I'm wrong though. IDK.
-
@LordRegal said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1374047#Comment_1374047
Oh I enjoy her concept a lot, don't get me wrong. I just can NOT tolerate her humming. I can't explain it, but it ruins my mood. I can tolerate one game, sometimes two, as or against her in a row, if I get three or more, I am automatically in a bad mood because her song just does that to me.
I'll likely pick up Deathslinger instead eventually, same basic idea, no humming that is just intolerable to me.
Weird that it "ruins" your mood. Not to discount what you're saying, I believe you. It's just, I can't even imagine how that would happen.
As for the advice though, if you've ever played Billy you know it's hard to go for long range chainsaws because survivors are always going to see you coming and have room to dodge. I feel like it's a similar case with Huntress and her hatchets. If a survivor sees you charge a hatchet, if they're good enough, even a charged hatchet can be juked from a distance. That's why I recommend walking practically right up behind them and only really going for hatchet throws once you're within lunge distance of them. At that point, no amount of reaction is going to save them with how fast your hatchet goes, and it's all a matter of if they have a pallet to get to or not.
-
I think what it is more specifically is a delay after reloading, as if he has to go through a cooldown to reload now instead of after he throws his bottle. I was under the assumption that they were just going to cut the cooldown/slow on Clown after he throws the bottle, but now it seems like that delay was rather just moved to happen after he reloads, which makes him feel like he loses even more distance than he should after the reload.
So yes, I indeed was experiencing what you described as "just before you're done reloading your bottles, suddenly you're 99% slowed almost to a complete halt." I guess if you do it at the right time, it still makes you lose less distance (as long as you aren't reloading after every single bottle) but as far as I'm concerned it's a bug, because they didn't say they were moving the delay to the end of his reload or anything in the patch notes.
-
I'm not arguing that this Adrenaline issue is necessarily good but is it really that surprising that Adrenaline didn't go off during a game? I mean, you're consciously bringing in a high risk high reward perk that has a niche use but a powerful effect, just like Deliverance. If you don't get a safe unhook before you get first hooked, Deliverance won't work either. Maybe just don't bring in perks that have a chance of not activating if you don't want to deal with something like that.
Once again, I'm not saying it's necessarily good that Adrenaline doesn't pause in a cage, but we've already established that pretty much every perk that interacts with hooks doesn't work on a cage. The only exception I can think of is when people use a mori, but I don't really know what to say about that. Maybe it only really considers perks when making that difference, or maybe BHVR is going to rewrite the mori description to accurately state that it works after a survivor has lost a "hook state" instead of only being put on the hook, I don't know what's the deal with that. I'm just saying it makes sense that since hook perks aren't working, that Adrenaline wouldn't pause as if you're on hook. Even if you're crawling around helpless on the ground it still picks you up, so it seems like it only really considers being hooked when deciding whether the perk pauses or not.
-
Can't people just not like the idea of FNaF? I don't think it would be the worst thing to have some sort of robotic or non-humanoid character, but FNaF just leaves a bad taste in a lot of peoples' mouths. It's very evident by the responses in this thread and pretty much every other thread.
I don't want to go into it, but the best way I can think to put it right now is: even if it's a killer kind of character, would it really fit? What if I said, "hey lets add Jeff the Killer into DbD. He has a cool backstory and he goes around and stabs people so he's deadly and his aesthetic totally fits the game!" I don't imagine a lot of people would agree with me even if he does "fit the aesthetic" by being a creepy slasher guy or whatever -- most people are going to be turned off to the idea because he's not actually even really menacing, and also because it's from a creepypasta that's just a meme at this point. Just like FNaF. I don't think a lot of people are denying that a decayed robotic killer or something would be bad, but I really doubt many people want Chuck-E-Cheese animatronics from a jump-scare game that was popular amongst kids, which is also a big meme at this point, to be inserted into DbD.
At that point you might as well just go all the way and start adding Jeff the Killer, Slenderman, and all these cheesy kiddie horror icons.
-
Survivors will call it "a tool that allows tunneling," killers will call it "a counter to people abusing perks." Depending on what kind of players are in the game, either can be true.
What I will say though, it's funny how quick people are to complain about something that allows tunneling, but conveniently forget that it takes much longer for the killer to get you down if he's just trying to cage you, and is practically within the survivors' control whether it works or not.
-
It literally just should not be 60 seconds. I don't get this comment:
@D3_destr0y3r said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1349819#Comment_1349819
The way I hypothetically set it up makes it so that you basically have to tunnel straight off hook for Ds to work, I mean if you tunnel directly off the hook then I think the 4 second stun and the survivor getting a chance at life without being tunnelled is the slap on the wrist killers should get.
I play killer and survivor quite equally and I feel really scummy if I tunnel right off the hook, I also know you know how easy it is not to tunnel directly off of the hook.
I will just add a bpdy block cancel to DS to the hypothetical changes because it just popped into my head while writing this
You said "The way I hypothetically set it up makes it so that you basically have to tunnel straight off hook for Ds to work," but that's simply not true. If the whole thing is 60 seconds and only will deactivate from a protection hit or another survivor being hooked, what's to stop the survivors from still trying to make aggressive plays in front of the killer's face just because they have their stupid 60 seconds of mini godmode?
I don't even care if it was 60 seconds but the conditions need to be different. I think the most obvious way that it should be done, if we want to counter tunneling, is to even leave it at 60 seconds if you want, but make it deactivate when the survivor does interacts with anything that progresses the game more (generators, totems, etc.) If you're being tunneled, then you shouldn't be doing anything of that sort, and if you are confident enough to hunker down on a generator or something then you're probably not being tunneled. It also should deactivate when getting into a locker so people can't just do that stupid locker crap where they force you to grab them just for you to eat the DS.
The only way I would be fine with it being base kit is if this was the case: it deactivated in pretty much any case you aren't being tunneled. It will still be there if you need it for when you're being tunneled, but you wouldn't be able to abuse the crap out of it like it's an offensive perk.
Another thing I want to add: there's a lot of controversy around the thing that Peanits said, which I'm pretty sure is "It's not exclusively an anti-tunneling perk -- that's an idea that came from the community" or something like that. There's still obviously a lot of people who think it's a perk to fight tunneling, which I can't blame them for thinking. I've always thought of it like that especially because they added the condition of needing to be hooked in order for it to activate. So even if we're saying that it should be used for more than fighting tunneling, there's absolutely no way that it should be 60 seconds with how easy it is to use.
-
@Seiko300 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1364444#Comment_1364444
That sounds more like a you problem than anything else. Button mashing isn't something that you should be doing when struggling and you're far more liable to mess up struggling if that's what you're doing. The important part of struggling is to maintain a consistent rate of tapping the spacebar than anything else. As far as I'm concerned, the system itself works perfectly fine at reading when you're struggling and when you've f*cked up as long as you're doing it properly. If it didn't this would be a far more widely spread reported issue than it is.
On top of this, you should be prepared to struggle because there's a whole second or two of wind up where the entity rears back before it strikes you with its spider claws. Regardless of whether or not someone is nearby for a save, you should in that moment, be prepared to struggle by already hitting space bar.
So your solution is an easy one, maybe don't do those things? Stop button mashing, and actually struggle when you're supposed to regardless of who is close by, both of these are rookie mistakes that don't need players to be accommodated for.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1364460#Comment_1364460
Oh, since we're repeating ourselves, I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier:
"So you're admitting people suicide consistently to actively avoid being punished? To avoid being banned? and not for "legit reasons"?
Hmmmmmm.... I wonder what that means when players use workarounds to avoid punishments from TOS.."
Again, if you're not willing to DC because you could be banned that is your own fault for abusing the disconnect feature during your games and not budgeting your own time correctly and ruining the experience consistently for the others in your matches.
If you're doing it for luck you should still be equipped with more than enough time to struggle. As I've already previously noted, there is a brief window of time between when you're in first hook state and when you're in second state struggle phase. This is purposefully implemented to allow players more than enough time to properly react and begin struggling in time.
Ruining the entire match for four other players and prioritizing yourself over the normal pace of the game is wrong.
This is the comment I was talking about.
Once again, hilariously ironic that you can't see the hypocrisy of telling somebody expressing valid counter-arguments that I've seen several others share, "That sounds more like a you problem than anything else," while you also try to pose an arguments that you claim you've seen several others share. The same thing, but "rules for thee but not for me," right?
-
@Seiko300 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1370572#Comment_1370572
Of course it's my ######### opinion you nut, that's what the forums are for to provide feedback based on the experiences (and yes, feelings) of a collective community to balance or create future content based on said given feedback. Not to mention, it's my thread so of course I'm going to let my opinion be known, if you want to create your own thread about how stupid you think the rest of us are for wanting to punish players who ruin the collective chances and experiences of a group of random survivors, you are free to do so.
"My opinion", that's about as obvious a statement as telling me the sky is blue and expecting me to say otherwise, like I'd actually deny that.
What I find "hilariously ironic" as you so eloquently put it, is you disregarding the opinions of others who agree with me and pretending that they don't exist. By framing the conversation and singling me out as if I'm prioritizing my experience over others you deliberately paint me as a selfish figure on purpose, disregarding the entire fact that I'm one of many who have called for these changes for the collective good of solo players who don't have the benefit of an SWF at their beck an call.
Just a couple weeks ago:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/156740/punish-hook-suicides
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/153846/something-to-discourage-first-hook-suicide
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/149647/hook-suicides-should-count-as-a-disconnect
Most all of these threads have hundreds of views on them and plenty of comments to boot, and it's not like these are the only threads that exist either. So I'm directly calling you on your bullsh*t @Huff saying that I'm prioritizing my own experience over others. When I quite literally stand with a large portion of the community who are currently and have been repeatedly calling for these changes. I'm not the first, and nor will I be the last.
I don't know how the hell you can see "selfishness" in my creating this thread when the entire thread is about punishing individuals who abandon 4 other players in a match because they're salty. In essence prioritizing themselves over four other people, believing they're entitled to a win, a better team, or even just a better start to their game, and I'm the one who's selfish and entitled? That's such a ridiculous leap in logic that I will never understand, Evil Knievel couldn't make that goddamn leap.
As for how you were treated on other threads by other people, how about you check that ######### and leave it at the door when coming into an entirely brand new and unrelated thread?
I don't need to read much of that, because it's clear by you devolving into namecalling instead of addressing my point that you have nothing to say against what I told you.
You say I'm the one putting words in your mouth but then here you are telling me that I'm disregarding other peoples' opinions. No, I just made fun of you because you're clearly responding like an ass. The whole message I'm trying to put across is that you have the gall to tell somebody that it's "just a personal problem" when I've seen many people say the same things. Just like you are arguing here, that you're not arguing for only for your sake, but because you agree with the many threads posted before. You're literally saying the same thing about me that I'm saying about you and yet you don't see how that's ironic. It's amazing how closed minded you can be, to tell me that I'm the one disregarding peoples' opinions when I only commented on how you responded, and to not see how "hilariously ironic" it is that you are textbook definition disregarding somebody else by telling them "sounds like a personal problem." It's so utterly tone deaf it's astounding.
There's no "bullsh*t" to call out. I told you you're disregarding the opinions of those who disagree with you and here you are. Doing it again, to me. Have fun being closed minded with your double standards, unwillingness to actually recognize or take criticism, and complete incapability of empathy (as shown by your willingness to ignore my logic but then try to still argue with that same logic.) I can't waste any more time with somebody who either obviously has a disability or is just completely unwilling to actually hear out an opinion that doesn't line up with his own.
So yeah. Please, tell me what "bullsh*t" there is to call out. Tell me how I'm disregarding the opinions of others and how you aren't a hypocritical garbage fire.
-
People have made a million and one posts about this: the answer is usually a resounding "no." Practically the only people I see that like the idea, save for a couple, are already fans of it and obviously are already on board.
Also want to add, it's odd that there's a fresh new account with 1 post putting this thread up... Makes me wonder if this is the OP from one of those other threads.
-
@Seiko300 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1365354#Comment_1365354
I never, ever used my own matches for reference at any point during the entirety of this threads existence.
Try throwing words in other peoples mouths. If you had been paying attention the whole reason I created this thread was because I saw other people talking about it and I created an easy solution to combat the problem. I even linked another thread where the OP was asking for penalties to be applied to those who killed themselves, which is what sparked my idea. I only ever used general statements about how killing yourself makes the game less fun for everyone else in the lobby.
It's a problem, problems need to be fixed, here's a potential solution. That's the short of what I have said. If you happen to disagree, please come up with your own alternative solution rather than saying "we should all just live with the problem, it is what it is".
Also, who the ######### is Cathy Newman??
I don't give a ######### if you brought up matches you played dude, because you clearly throw out your opinion about how you feel about it, how you think it should be in the game because of what you feel. You're claiming that it's not okay to let go, which is a statement of your opinion.
Don't act like just because you didn't bring up specific matches that you aren't putting your opinions out. No I'm not putting words in your mouth. Maybe it wasn't worded in the best way, but the point is you're telling somebody that it sounds like a "personal" problem when you're sitting here trying to argue for a change and give opinions, like your feelings aren't something that's involved here? Bullshit dude.
You say it's a "problem" and that's exactly what I'm talking about. Just because you think that it's a problem, doesn't mean you're entitled to have everybody agree with you. There's several people in this thread and all the other threads of a similar nature I see, I also see the same things being said. Yet, you ignore them, insist it is, and then when they offer counter arguments you once again you just act like their concerns don't exist. You obviously are arguing for a "personal problem" of yours. I think it's even more funny now that you've taken my comment and decided that I meant that you referenced matches that you play, when that's not what I was talking about. I'm saying you are advocating for your feelings (which is what I meant by people ruining the fun of your games).
And look up Cathy Newman. She's famous for her line "So what you're saying is..?" You'll probably find the search results funny.
Reason I said that, is because I get plenty of people just trying to take my messages to the extreme, like a time I jokingly commented "The hopes and dreams of survivors" as an answer to a thread asking what everybody likes to eat while playing killer, and somebody stalked through my comment history and pulled that up as an example of how I'm a killer main and don't care about survivors' fun or something.
-
I agree. If you're aware of a survivor waiting for a flashlight or pallet save, it's so easy to just look down for a second and the survivors usually come running out thinking you're picking up, leading to a free hit sometimes.
-
I'm not going to act like it's the most fun thing to have a killer that just fakes their power like that for almost no cost, but I don't think PH is as bad when it comes to it. His ranged attack if honestly not that great. Yeah it's kind of cool that it's almost like a Doctor's power but one that does damage instead, but actually managing to hit the thing isn't the easiest thing to do. Not only does it have a big red zone indicating where it's going to come up, but PH has awful control while using his trail so it's already really easy to miss it anyway.
I just don't think PH has as much "faking" capabilities as the other two.
-
I mean, it looks right. :)
-
I laugh when Billy has existed for the longest time and has crazy tunneling ability. He can still bring an ebony and have to do even less work than PH, while being more effective.
Come on guys. There's much worse stuff.
-
I spread my time between several different games because I can't really settle down with just one, especially since not a lot of my friends play the same games I do. That being said, while I don't spend all my time playing this game and I could play more often, just trying to get most of my daily game XP and playing up until now like I have, I've been averaging 1 tier per day. I haven't really recorded data of how much time I've spent or whatever, but I haven't even touched a challenge in level 4 of the tome yet, I'm about to finish level 3. So IDK what tier I'll end up being when I finish all the challenges, but it hasn't seemed as bad to me as the other ones. I did slack a little bit on the first one admittedly for a week and a half or so, but even after completing all the challenges and everything I only ended up at like tier 50.
-
I wouldn't say it's right or wrong. People could have "toxic" in their name for a number of reasons, but if you have a reason to believe that you should tunnel them, like it might be easy pickings or something, then go for it. Nobody can tell you you're wrong for that. Would I say it's right? I wouldn't necessarily say that either.
-
I can't really speak to her effectiveness but what I can say from playing her is that she feels pretty ass on dedicated servers. I can't tell you how many times (and Plague isn't even one of my more played killers) where I would go in for a puke and hit the survivor, see them wave their arms around and yelp, and still not be infected.
-
I don't necessarily think Billy baseline is that bad, but he seems overwhelming to me when he gets his best offerings for cheap and gets to run them like every game. I think it's kinda fun going against Billy sometimes because I agree, his power feels engaging to go against, but when pretty much every Billy I run go up against just does the same thing where he just gets right behind me, back revs, and ends up downing me no matter how hard I turn (thanks dedicated servers) or even if I go around a corner. Not even talking about him curving the corner, I'm talking about turning a corner when he's running up to the wall and still getting hit from around it. They almost never M1 either, it just feels like practically every time (and usually is when I check) an instasaw Billy doing, as I said, nothing but backrevs and running chase perks like Enduring and Spirit Fury.
I can play fine against a Billy, it just feels like he doesn't really have any punishment for using his power (besides the little cooldown at the end, which is also usually reduced by addons like tuning guide). Not saying that every chainsaw needs to have him take a big cooldown or whatever like Legion at the end of his power, but what I mean is even if he misses, he doesn't even really lose distance on you other than just enough to get a little farther around a loop (because who's honestly going to try to outrun a Billy) and even out of a chase it's still useful because he can always go really far really fast, meaning he can exert tons of pressure over not only gens but hooks, allowing him to tunnel pretty effectively. That's a big thing too, because I see people complaining about Pyramid Head and his tunneling recently, so people obviously have a problem with killers tunneling. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but Pyramid head, although he can cancel certain perks, can't just zoom right over to a hook like Billy can (on most maps.)
Once again, I can play just fine against him usually, so don't take this as me hating on him just because I can't handle him. I just think he's like Freddy where he's super versatile and has a ton of upsides, without having a lot of drawbacks or skill required to play them. Not even saying that Billy is on the same skill level as Freddy, but I don't exactly think billy is the hardest of characters. I don't exactly think Freddy is "OP" either, but definitely quiiiite the strong character for taking not a lot of skill. Makes it pretty boring to play against them, that's exactly why I hated Nurse before. Any joe schmoe could pick her up and use her disgusting addons and just dominate, regardless of if they actually were good or not. That makes for a boring game, in my opinion.
Not everybody has to agree, but that's just the kind of thing I find boring. Strong or not, just doesn't feel good to play such a much more punishing game when my opponent is going EZ mode.
-
@Madjura said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1366367#Comment_1366367
I like how quickly they ran out of ideas too. The very first batch had a purple Technician charm. Technician isn't a popular perk by any means, it sees practically no use and isn't popular in the sense of it being a fan favourite either. It has no connection to neither Claudette nor Trapper. It's so lazy.
Then there is also the purple arcade cabinet charm which to me is honestly even worse. Again no connection to either character. It was most likely a leftover asset that didn't get finished to be put in a map, so it was recycled. It's not even difficult to make it not look completely awful and lazy, just give it a texture that isn't just all purple, but not even that was done.
Pretty much what I'm talking about right here.
I think they should just do a suggestion that I've seen here before, and put shards into the rift. Where they would go is where the bad charms would get taken out. Or hell, even like the tiniest amount of auric cells so over a few rifts somebody could save up just a tiny bit for a cell-exclusive cosmetic piece or something. I don't know, anything that would be more appealing than these useless ugly charms that won't even get used. I'm even fine with the cool ones as I said, because there's gotta be some sort of filler. That cell idea would be nice because I, for example have something like 1020 or 1040 cells or something of spare cells after the cells I spend on the rift pass, and it would be nice if instead of those charms I was able to earn a tiny bit of cells to be able to purchase a cell-exclusive set or something since I'm not even 100 off.
-
They gotta have some sort of filler for the rifts.
If each and every one looked somewhat cool and unique I might be a little more lenient (after all, who even really needs a skin or anything else cosmetic?) but a decent amount of them are clones of each other, or don't look that good to begin with (example: the ones from Rift 1 that were all just Trapper's head on a little emblem, in different colors). The lvl 70 rift ones have looked alright so far, like the cube one from the current rift, but honestly... They need some work if they aren't to be seen as some crappy little filler item.